Laserfiche WebLink
• <br /> party. Enterprise Bank v. Magna Bank, 92 F.3d 743, 747 (8th Cir. 1996). The <br /> • moving party bears the burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of material <br /> fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Enterprise Bank, 92 F.3d <br /> at 747. A party opposing a properly supported motion for summary judgment may <br /> not rest upon mere allegations or denials, but must set forth specific facts showing <br /> that there is a genuine issue for trial. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, <br /> • 256 (1986); Krogness v. Best Buy Co., Inc., 524 N.W.2d 282 (Minn. Ct. App.) rev. <br /> denied (1994). The Court of Appeals will affirm summary judgment if it can be <br /> sustained on any grounds. Id. <br /> • <br /> B. Summary Judgment <br /> "A summary judgment, interlocutory in character, may be rendered on the. <br /> • issue of liability alone although there is a genuine issue as to the amount of <br /> damages." Minn. R. Civ. P. 56.03. Summary judgment is appropriate where 1) <br /> there is no genuine issue of material fact in dispute, and 2) where a ruling on the law <br /> • <br /> will resolve the case. Gaspord v. Washington County Planning Commission, 312 <br /> Minn. 591, 252 N.W.2d 590 (1977). In other words, summary judgment is proper <br /> • where the parties do not dispute the facts but rather dispute the application of the <br /> law to the facts. Fire & Casualty Insurance Company of Connecticut v. Illinois <br /> Farmers Insurance Co., 352 N.W.2d 798 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984). <br /> • <br /> C. Orono Zoning Ordinances <br /> Analysis of several Orono zoning ordinances is instructive in this matter. <br />• Section 11.02, subd 4.C. of the Orono City Code (OCC) sets out the basic intent of <br /> the City Council: <br />• 5 <br /> App. Page 8 of 35 �► <br />